1010 PONTIFICIAE ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARVM SCRIPTA VARIA - 28

corded in the last column of table 1. As can be expected to
some extent at least, participation potential increases with increase
 in degree of spatial decentralization. This is the case
for rows A to G where each row involves greater spatial decentralization
 than the preceding row. When we come to row H
it is no longer clear, as indicated, whether G or H involves
a higher degree of spatial decentralization. Note that P falls
from 130.00 for G to 65.67 for H. From row H to and including
 row L, there is once again a succession of patterns, each
one involving a higher degree of spatial decentralization than
the preceding one. The value of P also rises, without exception,
from one pattern to the next. At row M, once again it is not
possible to state that the pattern has a higher degree of spatial
decentralization than the preceding one (row L). We also note
that P at M is lower than P at L.
(To illustrate the dependence of P on the choice of values
for the basic parameters, we carry through several more computations.
 The results are given in table 2. In column 1 of

or allocation of decision-making authority among the modes in the » order
hierarchy. In the calculation of the participation potentials of the last
column of table I, dzy = oo, whenever f < g since a downward flow of participation
 or exertion of influence has been precluded by assumption, and
diu=e which we set equal to 1/10. The value of 2 is 4 so that the [ke]
vector is [1, 4, 16, 64]. The =| matrix becomes
d=Je

To 1 ï
to 7?

The product of [R#!] and z= is the row vector [43 1/3, 88, 224, 640]
zl
This row vector, when multiplied by the matrix [1,,] vields a row vector
which is the transpose of the last column of table 1.

[12] Isard - pag. 8